U.S. Pat. No. 7,345,677 This document seems to focus upon Lamb-wave techniques for detecting the history of surface waves propagating upon a sheet of glass. Much of the disclosure and several of the method claims (1-ff) of this USGrant focus upon a “method for locating a position of an impact”, and mention a methodology similar to time-reversed acoustics, the known technic which grew from early published studies of Parvulescu and of Clay (˜1960) on matched-signal techniques. This document does not mention the extensive work done by Mathias Fink in France on Décomposition de l'Opérateur de Retournement Temporel, which started in about 1990; DORT is the French-language acronym for time-reversal mirrors.
One example of the early work done by Professeur Mathias Fink and his students relating to phased-array ultrasonic imaging was presented on 21 Jul. 1992 at a SPIE Conference in San Diego, Calif. (USA). This paper was titled “Focusing and steering of ultrasonic waves generated by a sixteen-laser source array”. The authors were: Marie-Helene Noroy, Daniel Royer, and Mathias Fink. This paper confirmed excellent focusing and sensitivity of the multiple active thermoelastic sites by the use of classical piezoelectric transducers and a compact optical heterodyne probe.
The following quote from a contemporaneous published abstract [“The laser-generated ultrasonic phased array: Analysis and experiments”, by Marie-Hélène Noroy, Daniel Royer, and Mathias Fink; Laboratoire Ondes et Acoustique, Université Paris VII, URA C.N.R.S. 1503, ESPCI, 10, rue Vauquelin, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France (Received 27 Jan. 1993; accepted 29 Jun. 1993)] gives full, clear, complete and exact detail on the particular method reported in the 1992 SPIE presentation, i.e., “The elastic waves are detected either by a broadband optical heterodyne probe to analyze the wide ultrasonic signal spectrum (0-20 MHz), or by a narrow-band piezoelectric transducer to achieve the sectorial acoustic beam scanning of the sample. Neglecting heat diffusion in the solid and considering the source as a surface center of expansion, the impulse directivity patterns of laser-generated longitudinal acoustic waves have been computed. Experiments performed on duraluminum samples in the thermoelastic regime and steel samples in the ablation regime are presented and compared with this analysis. It is shown that a high focusing and a significant improvement of the signal sensitivity for longitudinal waves can be achieved with this technique.”
Since Professeur Fink is a distinguished international authority on the science of ultrasonic medical therapy-imaging (the author of more than 300 research papers as well as inventor on a number of patents) and undoubtedly lectures often in public seminars and thesis orals, the application of ultrasonic imaging principles he has long taught relating to the problem of “locating the position of an impact” would have been well known after about 1992.
USPubApp 20070247434 FIGS. 1-6 depict a PDA device with display screen, permanent control keys (“buttons”), four small circular dashed features identified as “virtual buttons 130” and a very small circular dashed feature marked “tap sensor 140”. These drawings are confusing because they seem vague and indefinite, i.e., dashed lines are typically used to show environmental features which are not part of the alleged invention. One possibility is that the disclosed “Virtual Button,™” also display the special property of “visibility”.
This invention is disclosed by means of the following brief description, “A position detecting mechanism determines the position of a user's tap on the outside surface of the housing based on the tap signal. In accordance with the preferred embodiments of the present invention, the position of the user's tap is determined through triangulation using the tap signal from each of plural accelerometers mounted at different locations.” (P17)
Enabling detail for the “position detecting mechanism”, i.e., specific facts about its structural features, their individual functions and the methods by which they cooperate to sense input “taps”, measure quantitative distances from either the “tap sensor 140” or the undefined locations of “plural accelerometers” and calculate angles to the “button 130” are not to be found in this document.
The apparent action steps 600-618 and related apparatus elements of this alleged invention as shown in FIG. 6 are characterized by name only and no quantitative data is provided on their initiation condition, duration, end point, size, shape, location, performance, etc.
The “triangulation” process (P39, P40) is vague and indefinite since the several named multiple accelerometers do not measure “tap” angles and distances and solve: firstly the particular triangles or secondly the complex geometric relationships (angles and distances) between the several possible “virtual buttons” and the several principal axes of rotation (x, y, or z) of the possible accelerometers.
Thus, one of ordinary skill reasonably concludes that this invention is not disclosed in full, clear, concise and exact terms.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,152,014 Bang, et al. Although the word “identify” is found more than 40 times in the grant, its particular, exact, quantitative technical meaning is not disclosed.
Because the words “deflection wave”, “acoustic” and “vibration” are found 0 times in this USGrant, it is concluded that these basic mechanical phenomena, which are undoubtedly present and able to be measured in any real situation, are disputed or not recognized in this invention. Indeed, the repeated use of “inertia” and “angular velocity” suggests that the invention relies upon undefined new laws of physics for “tap” response and sensing. Not a single actual indicia-numbered electronic component is identified by critical performance data such as: source, model, size, sensitivity, linearity and other critical functional characteristics.
The specification seems non-enabling for independent Claim 1 which relates to a specific electronic device since it contains: (a) not a single type-model-version identification of any particular gyroscope or “angular accelerometer” being used, (b) no actual functional characteristics of any particular “inertia sensors” or “angular velocity sensors”, computers or other signal processing components are disclosed, (c) no specific minimum, maximum, or typical “tap input” intensity, elastic energy or momentum exchange value is disclosed and (d) no critical elastic and vibration-damping properties of structural areas of the “housing” and its frame, which receive “input taps”.
The specification seems non-enabling for independent Claim 26 which relates to a “method of entering information” since it contains no quantitative physical or functional disclosure of the several critical “means”, i.e., “angular velocity measuring”, “determining” whether angular velocity is actual tapping and “identifying” a particular rotation axis excited by “tapping”.
The specification seems non-enabling for independent Claim 42 which relates to a “computer program” since no explicit or even general “instructions” are disclosed in a short listing of typical computer code or a microfiche attachment. One of ordinary skill would thus be required to do extensive research to find and validate components capable of: (a) measuring an unknown angular velocity resulting from an undefined “tap contact” on any unspecified area of the housing, (b) collecting and sampling the output responses from the selected components into a unspecified processor and (c) reliably deducing the “contacted region”.